Federal Government & Politics II

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

These kind of harebrained schemes only come from those who have no clue how things work for real and know their words have no consequence since they'd never be implemented. It's disappointing that otherwise intelligent people would take this crap seriously.

I know it's de rigeur to think that all government employees are useless. But would you be okay with the first random person getting fired being the safety inspectors at the Food Inspection Agency who check the food you buy? What about the aviation safety inspector who checks the work of the airlines you fly on or that fly above your house? Or the nuclear safety inspectors who are making sure we don't have a Canadian Three Mile Island. Not every federal worker is simply some bureaucrat making diversity posters. If it didn't impact my health and safety, I'd actually support this. I'm perfectly okay with you flying on uninspected airplanes and eating possibly tainted food.

If you don't think we can lose 10% in every part of government then sure.

I am not saying they are all useless and making safety posters. I am saying randomness would eliminate the dead wood better than current practices. You could exempt those essential to safety if you want though doing that and the person researching diversity policy in our 6th generation fighter procurement will be deemed essential.

Regardless I guarantee my method causes less chaos than the method the Conservatives will use to cut headcount. For example likely instead of losing 10% of our nuclear inspectors we will lose 8% who will be the most experienced who take the early buyout offered.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

If you don't think we can lose 10% in every part of government then sure.

I am not saying they are all useless and making safety posters. I am saying randomness would eliminate the dead wood better than current practices. You could exempt those essential to safety if you want though doing that and the person researching diversity policy in our 6th generation fighter procurement will be deemed essential.

Regardless I guarantee my method causes less chaos than the method the Conservatives will use to cut headcount. For example likely instead of losing 10% of our nuclear inspectors we will lose 8% who will be the most experienced who take the early buyout offered.

If the goal is reducing by 10% (though it might be more than that) you can achieve that without too much difficulty simply by giving some incentives to a bunch of people who are over 50 so as to push them to retire. Then you eliminate their positions from the org chart.

[someone123]

What would "steel-manning" the complaints about public sector workers look like?

I can think of some examples:

- Increase in hiring and labour expenses in federal civil service don't seem to correlate with service quality
- When you get services from the government, it feels inefficient and outdated
- A lot of the "services" are related to red tape created by the government itself (consider taxes for example)
- Many government workers couldn't find an alternate market-rate job with similar compensation (do we suffer from brain drain to the USA of middle managers in Ottawa like we do with software engineers or doctors?)

These don't imply all public sector workers are overvalued or we don't need government services, but I think there is room to find efficiencies.

[Nashe]

I mean, the human body has some redundant systems too... if we eliminated 10% of our organs randomly, we would all be lighter! Yeah, that sounds a little nuts.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Isn't that the standard throughout the federal administration, though? People get paid the same for doing the same job no matter where they live, whether it's Ottawa, Corner Brook or Vancouver.

I think that is true for some pay groups. And they adjust with cost of living in other ways.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

If you don't think we can lose 10% in every part of government then sure.

I would bet a paychecque that there are some important places that probably can't take a 10% hit. The FPS has grown. But unfortunately little has been done to actually address some of those shortages in highly skilled jobs.

Originally Posted by YOWetal

I am not saying they are all useless and making safety posters. I am saying randomness would eliminate the dead wood better than current practices. You could exempt those essential to safety if you want though doing that and the person researching diversity policy in our 6th generation fighter procurement will be deemed essential.

These are some contradictory ideas. You want to create randomness but also exempt those whose function you agree with. All you will end up doing is encouraging as many people as possible to try and define their jobs as safety critical. Instead of that, why not eliminate the policies you disagree with and get rid of the staff working on those policies entirely?

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Regardless I guarantee my method causes less chaos than the method the Conservatives will use to cut headcount. For example likely instead of losing 10% of our nuclear inspectors we will lose 8% who will be the most experienced who take the early buyout offered.

Your method is just as chaotic. Your random selection may end up firing the most senior people or even the director.

It's okay to admit that these ideas are like communism: good on paper and shit in real life.

I actually don't think the CPC will implement an automatic 10% cut this time. I think they already know which departments are going to get the real hammer blows. After all, even folks on here can think of policy areas they think are useless.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by Acajack

If the goal is reducing by 10% (though it might be more than that) you can achieve that without too much difficulty simply by giving some incentives to a bunch of people who are over 50 so as to push them to retire. Then you eliminate their positions from the org chart.

This is basically what the OPS did under Wynne and later Ford. You can also target less necessary areas with cuts and give those with seniority a fixed amount of time to try and find another internal position (in the OPS this was 6 months). Takes longer but coupled with hiring freezes (replacement basis for necessary positions) and non-renewal of contracted workers you can still achieve fairly significant decreases relatively quickly.

EDIT: granted, a lot of the positions I saw made redundant in the provincial workforce were admin staff. Not sure if this is an issue in the Feds, but it's low-hanging fruit.

[casper]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

The problem is nobody knows and certainly not an incoming Conservative government who will not be told the truth even if someone did know where the fat is.

That is not what would happen. They would go to the deputy minister and say, we need you to present a budget with a 10% cut. If they are smart they would also ask what the impact is and what programs will disappear.

The deputy minister will do the same all the way down and then back up the org chart.

In a large organization there is always program and activities that outlived their usefulness and need to be purged. Doing this from time to time is healthy. Doing it year after year is not.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by niwell

This is basically what the OPS did under Wynne and later Ford. You can also target less necessary areas with cuts and give those with seniority a fixed amount of time to try and find another internal position (in the OPS this was 6 months). Takes longer but coupled with hiring freezes (replacement basis for necessary positions) and non-renewal of contracted workers you can still achieve fairly significant decreases relatively quickly.

EDIT: granted, a lot of the positions I saw made redundant in the provincial workforce were admin staff. Not sure if this is an issue in the Feds, but it's low-hanging fruit.

The feds also have a lot of non-permanent staff in various employment categories (term, casual, contract). Not sure if when the numbers for the growth of the public service are cited in the news if they are counted. I assume they are though, as they're on the federal payroll.

That said they are often the first and easiest people to cut as there are no union or collective agreements involved.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I would bet a paychecque that there are some important places that probably can't take a 10% hit. The FPS has grown. But unfortunately little has been done to actually address some of those shortages in highly skilled jobs.



These are some contradictory ideas. You want to create randomness but also exempt those whose function you agree with. All you will end up doing is encouraging as many people as possible to try and define their jobs as safety critical. Instead of that, why not eliminate the policies you disagree with and get rid of the staff working on those policies entirely?



Your method is just as chaotic. Your random selection may end up firing the most senior people or even the director.

It's okay to admit that these ideas are like communism: good on paper and shit in real life.

I actually don't think the CPC will implement an automatic 10% cut this time. I think they already know which departments are going to get the real hammer blows. After all, even folks on here can think of policy areas they think are useless.

So what you're saying is that if you're an EX01 Director of Equity, Diversity and Inclusion in a federal department, don't make any long-term plans after 2025?

[Dartguard]

A friend of mine works in a financial management position at a major School board here in Nova Scotia and has provided some insight how She would streamline things if Queen for a day. She has studied the staff she is responsible for and its eye opening.

She knows that about 25% of her staff are rock stars that would succeed anywhere they worked. They are the get it done bunch as that's just the way they came out of their Mom's. About half of her staff go to work and are capable but can and do screw the pooch if able and are lifers. The Golden Handcuffs bunch, could leave but never will. Her other 25% are the whiners, Office Lawyers, the "sickly" in knowing exactly how many days they can take off, and the hiders.

If She were Queen for a day and tasked with a staff draw down She would allow everyone to vote out her fellow co workers. Professional criteria being the driving factor, .Survivor in a sense. Oh My the Unions would go to the ramparts for that last 25%.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Acajack

If the goal is reducing by 10% (though it might be more than that) you can achieve that without too much difficulty simply by giving some incentives to a bunch of people who are over 50 so as to push them to retire. Then you eliminate their positions from the org chart.

Saving little money and losing the most experienced people but sure.

Originally Posted by Acajack

So what you're saying is that if you're an EX01 Director of Equity, Diversity and Inclusion in a federal department, don't make any long-term plans after 2025?

Surely they are well aware.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Acajack

So what you're saying is that if you're an EX01 Director of Equity, Diversity and Inclusion in a federal department, don't make any long-term plans after 2025?

Sure.

Honestly, none of the places I worked at since this government came to power, saw any real increase in staffing. Mostly these policies just mean more PowerPointa and online training for me. Wherever the folks that do these policies reside, I'm sure they know their future isn't looking as bright.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by casper

That is not what would happen. They would go to the deputy minister and say, we need you to present a budget with a 10% cut. If they are smart they would also ask what the impact is and what programs will disappear.

The deputy minister will do the same all the way down and then back up the org chart.

In a large organization there is always program and activities that outlived their usefulness and need to be purged. Doing this from time to time is healthy. Doing it year after year is not.

This is exactly what I am saying will happen. the DM will come up with painful cuts that are felt and it will take years for the Cons to get a feel for where the real fat is. DRAP worked like this and was a very small cut.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

This is exactly what I am saying will happen. the DM will come up with painful cuts that are felt and it will take years for the Cons to get a feel for where the real fat is. DRAP worked like this and was a very small cut.

DRAP worked like that because there weren't many obvious cuts. Recent hiring surge under this government has been driven by specific policies and has been somewhat concentrated in certain departments. Change the policies. And a lot of those positions become redundant.

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

DRAP worked like that because there weren't many obvious cuts. Recent hiring surge under this government has been driven by specific policies and has been somewhat concentrated in certain departments. Change the policies. And a lot of those positions become redundant.

What are the certain departments?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Dartguard

What are the certain departments?

I think they've been discussed here at length. And you can see the stats here:

https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-bo...epartment.html

[theman23]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I think they've been discussed here at length. And you can see the stats here:

https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-bo...epartment.html

Interesting that the CRA workforce is 3x larger than that of the Australia Taxation Office and only about 30% smaller than the IRS.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by theman23

Interesting that the CRA workforce is 3x larger than that of the Australia Taxation Office and only about 30% smaller than the IRS.

It takes a lotta people to collect billions in punitive social engineering taxes, and then redistribute the collected revenue via a series of rebate checks to federally designated worthy people (buying the electorate with their own money).

You can hear the paper shuffling from miles away......

[MolsonExport]

From Alberta to the Maritimes and Quebec??